2012-04-21

As you may or may not know, an Alberta election is underway. As its
looking like there's a real solid chance that the Wildrose party can
seize the reigns of power away from Alison "Red" Redford and her
"Progressive" "Conservative" Party, I felt this would be a good time to
bring up some of the disastrous legislation enacted by Red Redford's
party.

Today this trip down memory lane takes us to, well, a few years really, where the Alberta Government tried to build a bunch of power lines. You can read the various offending legislation here and here.

I can’t say the powerline thing has been a big problem for me. Indeed, it’s probably the deadest issue that I can think of. But for huge swathes of rural Alberta, the kind that have inexplicably jumped on Loopy Joe Anglin as their saviour, it seems to matter.
For the most part, when it comes to powerlines, I’m on the “Progressive” “Conservative”’s side: Alberta is experiencing rapid growth. A larger and more reliable power grid will be required, and unlike second rate jurisdictions like Ontario or California it would be nice if we could accurately gauge the demand and have the infrastructure in place before it becomes a problem. Rolling brownouts is not the Alberta Advantage I signed up for!

The primary problem with how they’ve done the powerlines is they had to make it political early, and they had to try and bully through the lines without simply compensating the people who’s land the powerlines are built on. At the end of the day, just like what Kevin O’Leary said about the Keystone pipeline, those high-voltage power lines will have to be built. For people like Loopy Joe Anglin, who happen to be landowners leeches† in the area between Edmonton and Calgary (or for that matter, Lethbridge and Fort McMurray), this means there’s going to be a powerline or two in your neighbourhood. Of course, your neighbourhood is projected to be one of the world’s richest patches of land, so on balance things there are going pretty well.

Indeed, the pipeline analogy is a good one: like powerlines, they run across property and limit (somewhat) what landowners can do on them. Unlike oil wells which come in, take what they need, and leave, these stay on the property indefinitely. Finally, for those freaking out that these powerlines may be used to sell power to the Americans, what the flying fuck do you think happens to the oil in those pipelines? Most farmers are pretty cool with the whole pipeline thing, so again the ultimate problem was simply a compensation one: as Danielle Smith said, fair compensation for the loss of utility on the land is required.

So if you’re mad at Red Redford over powerlines, fine. Vote them out on the basis of that if you must. Let’s just be realistic about these lines? They may not be required for the power grid today. They may not be required in ten years. They probably should be planned out so that they are only built within the timefence of the required demand (minimizing the impact on landowners). They will, however, need to be built, no matter what NDP-loving landowners leeches† have to say about it.

†I’m reminded, as I was the last time I wrote on this topic, that Joe Anglin doesn’t own a single piece of land and has never worked a plow in his life. He’s an American who married an Anglican lady preacher and just signs onto whatever political party is available to promote his blind ambition. Which is why I didn’t endorse him on Friday.

There is a strong right-wing alternative: Danielle Smith's Wildrose
Party of Alberta. I'm pretty sure they'll back you on the powerline thing.